A Life of Struggle: Student Aid Recipients Doomed by a Work-First Approach?

In avoiding a life of struggle, the importance of higher education cannot be overstated.

According to Richburg-Hayes (2008), between 1979 and 2005:

Real hourly wages for people with advanced degrees rose by 28%.

College graduates saw wages increase by 22%.

Wages for high school graduates stayed flat.

Wages for high school dropouts fell by 16%

Regardless of these facts, the U.S. Federal government, in 1996, passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The legislation is based on the work first philosophy, which places more value on working before education, whether or not that work allows an individual to truly achieve self-sufficiency rather than persist in a life of struggle.

While the federal legislation gives states considerable latitude in defining what counts as a work activity, many states have placed tight restrictions on the length of time a welfare recipient may spend in school instead of full-time work. Massachusetts, for example, only allows welfare recipients to spend two months in post-secondary educational activities before they must obtain employment and no longer receive welfare payments.

Under the new federal law, an individual has a maximum five-year lifetime limit on the time he or she can receive benefits. No person can receive cash payments from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for more than two consecutive years. As with the definition of work activities, states have the latitude to change the length of time a person can receive these benefits, often shortening it, putting post-secondary education out of reach for many individuals with poor employment prospects, and almost no hope of rising out of poverty (Kienzl, 1999: Peterson, 2002; Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006).

As providers of education, community colleges can play a valuable role in providing educational opportunities that allow welfare recipients to meet the new work-first requirements in the PRWORA legislation while also pursuing educational objectives that will increase earnings (Shaw et al., 2006; Peterson, 2002).

In 1996, 80 percent of community colleges reported having Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) programs. JTPA experience consists of very short-term training usually focused on job search and is work-first in philosophy. In other words, community colleges offer job search skills to aid in welfare recipients gaining employment, not necessarily in providing a marketable skill. A survey conducted on the wage gains of participants in the JTPA program found no meaningful increase in participant earnings after the program. JTPA was replaced with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 2000 (Kienzl 1999; Brock et al., 2001).

WIA funding provides a generic funding base for individuals who qualify for job training through job training centers, for example, One-Stop Centers. One-Stop Centers can provide job search skill training in-house, whereas, as we saw before, that had previously been the function of the community college. Other training is outsourced to vendors, specifically, community colleges (Lisman, 2001). More recently, competition for designation as a training vendor within the One-Stop network has been highly sought after by both community colleges and proprietary schools.

There are two primary schools of thought on the community college’s role in educating the welfare population. The human capital approach stresses the importance of education; the other is the work-first approach, which does not encourage participants increased education over becoming immediately employed (Kienzl, 1999). Proponents of the human capital approach suggest that investing money in providing education opportunities will reduce the rate of return to the welfare rolls (Brock, Grossman & Hamilton, 2001).

How Welfare Reform Policies Impact Community Colleges

The American Association of Community Colleges, in 1998, evaluated the effect of welfare reform on community colleges. The findings were compared to a similar survey conducted in 1997. The 1998 survey of 400 community colleges found that over 53% of community colleges had a state-funded welfare-to-work program in place.

On average, 2.5% of the total student population surveyed took part in these programs. Moreover, since welfare-to-work legislation went into effect, community colleges have seen the number of students enrolled in welfare-to-work programs increase, with nearly 5% of the student population receiving cash payments from the government. Over half of all the community colleges surveyed indicated that they have a career One-Stop Center. Of the colleges with One-Stop Centers, over 93% offer career counseling, 60.8% offer child care services, and 46.6% provide transportation assistance to students. (Kienzl, 1999).

In addition, One Stop Center programs can often provide funds for car repairs, rental assistance, and other crisis services to enable Welfare to Work participants to persist in training programs where these barriers may otherwise prevent them from doing so (Peterson, 2002). There are currently 166 One-Stop Centers nationwide in various locations, including community college campuses. One-Stop Centers were established in 1998 under the Workforce Investment Act and designed to offer a range of comprehensive services, including training, to job seekers (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).

The American Association of Community Colleges also found that almost 64% of students who received welfare payments also lacked basic literacy and math skills, with over 60% lacking personal management skills. Due to this fact, 44% of the colleges responded that they offer job readiness courses, most commonly to enrolled welfare recipients. It is important to note that the number of welfare recipients could be underreported due to concerns related to the confidentiality of records. However, community colleges do cross-reference the information provided by students with unemployment insurance records to gather data about student wages post-graduation (Kienzl, 1999).

General characteristics of a Welfare to Work program in a community college include a prevalence of job search and job readiness training, academic and job-specific instruction, and on-the-job training. The average duration of a program for welfare recipients is four to eight months. Not incidentally, vocational education is an allowable work activity under PRWORA, for 12 months under federal law; however, as noted earlier, individual states can shorten this period as they see fit (Kienzl, 1999).

Leaving Behind a Life of Struggle

According to the Department of Labor, most Welfare to Work participants are hired into entry-level positions in the service industry and receive a salary 30% below the average for all full-time workers (Ong & McConville, 2001). Nearly 16% found jobs in technical and administrative fields (Kienzl, 1999). One wonders if those finding employment in the service industries could not have acquired such a position without going to the expense of post-secondary education.

Results of research into the efficacy of Welfare to Work community college programs have been mixed. In the 1999-2000 academic years, 107,087 students enrolled in community colleges were recipients of CalWORKS. CalWORKS is a state-funded welfare program that provides cash assistance to needy families (CalWORKS, n.d.). Forty-three percent of CalWORKS students enrolled in California community colleges received no financial aid.

By tracking students’ state unemployment wage data for several years, California community colleges have found that one year after leaving school, CalWORKS students increased their median annual income by 42%, while earnings for the general population of students increased by just 13%. Even when the fact that the median earnings among CalWORKS participants are much lower to start with than the median income of the general student body was taken into account, CalWORKS participants’ earnings increase much faster than those of the general population (Mathur, 2002). Such an increase in wages earned can do much to help individuals and families rise up out of a life of struggle.

While 71% of CalWORKS students are employed while in school, after leaving college, there is a significant increase in the percentage, from 45% to 58%, of those employed across all four quarters of the year. A year after completion, CalWORKS students who earned a vocational associate degree more than doubled their earnings (Mathur, 2002). In California, almost half of the CalWORKS Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients between 2000 and 2001 also received support services through the community college. The number of students receiving supportive services has risen by 57% since PRWORA legislation was enacted.

According to Mathur (2002), shortly after the PWORA legislation, California’s state legislature allocated 65 million dollars annually to new spending on education to enable all 108 community colleges to better serve CalWORKS students by expanding and redesigning educational programs by providing support services. The spending on these activities helps the state meet its TANF Maintenance of Effort requirement. When this requirement is met, the colleges receive an additional 16 million dollars in TANF funds, half federal and half state funds.

While California’s CalWORKs program appears to have achieved some successes, other programs report less favorable results. For example, the National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies (2002) found that education first programs that required people to participate in educational activities first did not increase participants’ likelihood of increasing earnings any more than programs employing the work first philosophy.

However, the educational activities required in this study were remedial math, GED, and other literacy education, rather than vocational training (Hamilton, 2002). Other studies have found modest increases in earnings only among women (Richburg-Hayes, 2008). Additionally, Becker, Horn, and Carroll (2003) found that 62% of students who considered themselves workers first had not completed a degree or a certificate after six years and were no longer enrolled. This compares to the dropout rate of 39% among community college students who considered themselves students first.

One study found that work-study experience combined with vocational education had the most significant impact on wages. Work-study completers earned $10.19 per hour compared to $8.69 per hour for those who did not complete a work-study experience (The Education Services Division, 2005).

Policy Implications

Factors influencing community colleges include state welfare policy, federal welfare policy, and the job market. Many TANF recipients need adult basic education and remedial coursework before starting a vocational education program. Nevertheless, the work first philosophy behind the policy dictates that remedial education and basic literacy cannot be counted toward work hours. States received their funding based on the “minimum work participation rate” of the TANF recipients (Kienzl, 1999).

As a result of the data collected in the CalWORKS study, Mathur (2002) suggests that the 18-24 month limits on secondary education should be reconsidered because it typically takes an individual who is working at an average of three and a half years to complete an associate’s degree. Those earning associate’s degrees increased their earned income by 33% more than those who earned only a certificate.

Conclusion

While much of the literature seems to lament the fact that welfare recipients are now required to work a minimum of 20 hours per week under Welfare to Work legislation or forfeit their cash assistance, the burden does not seem to be any greater for welfare recipients than it is for students who are not receiving welfare.

Many students work part-time while pursuing education without receiving the other supportive services available to those on the welfare rolls, such as rental assistance, car repairs, and transportation assistance. Rather than receive assistance in the form of free money from the government, most students borrow the money needed for living expenses while in college and are later required to pay those funds back plus interest. Welfare recipients are not required to pay back any portion of the funds provided to them, whether they complete their educational program or not.

Some of the literature indicated that financial aid was not available to welfare recipients enrolled in colleges. However, the criteria for receiving a Pell grant in no way exclude welfare recipients. Welfare recipients are eligible for student aid packages to the same degree as the general student population. Perhaps the community colleges could do more to assist students on welfare caseloads to apply for Pell grants to fund their education. The fact that welfare recipients are not receiving financial aid to the same extent as the general population could result from the need for the One-Stop Career Centers to expand their own training budgets each year.

As noted earlier, students who view themselves as college students first, and workers second, were more likely to persist in vocational training. Finding ways to help welfare recipients identify as students is crucial to their success (Becker et al.). Helping students to internalize a life-long learning philosophy, regardless of whether they are working or in school, could be one key to ensuring persistence in education among students in Welfare to Work programs. A recognition that they can achieve more than a life of struggle.

References

Berker, A., Horn, L., and Carroll, C. (2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who combine employment and post-secondary enrollment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.

Brock, T. Matus-Grossman, L. & Hamilton, G. (2001). Welfare reform and community colleges: A policy research context. New Directions for Community Colleges. No. 116. Winter.
CA.gov. (n.d). Department of Social Services. California work opportunity and responsibility to kids. Retrieved from http://www.cdss.ca.gov/calworks/

Education Services Division (2005). WorkFirst. Fifth-year accountability report for work first training programs conducted in 2002-2003. Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges.
Hamilton, G. (2002). Moving people from welfare to work: Lessons from the national evaluation of welfare to work strategies. New York: MDRC.

Kienzl, Gregory (1999). Community College Involvement in Welfare to Work. American Association of Community Colleges.

Lisman, C. D. (2001). Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Mathur, Anita (2002). Credentials Count: How California’s Community Colleges Help Parents Move from Welfare to Self Sufficiency. California Community Colleges; Office of the Chancellor.
Ong, Paul; & McConville, Shannon. (2001). Welfare to Work and the Entry-Level Labor Market. University of California Institute for Labor and Employment. UC Berkeley: University of California Institute for Labor and Employment. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dm0w44t

Peterson, K. (2002). Welfare to work programs: Strategies for success. ERIC Digest.

Richburg-Hayes, L. (2008). Helping low-wage workers persist in educational programs: Lessons from research on welfare training programs and two promising community college strategies. MDRC.

Shaw, K.M., Goldrick-Rab, S. (2006). Work-first federal policies: Eroding access to community colleges for Latinos and low-income populations. New Directions for Community Colleges. No. 133. Spring.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Training: One-stop career centers. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/training/onestop.htm